Tighter gun regulations are needed; most aren't calling for ban

Feb. 12, 2013

Why do so many gun owners resort to the “inanimate objects don’t kill” and “people will still die” arguments in advocating their right to unregulated possession of firearms? If this argument were applied to the regulation of vehicle ownership, it would sound ridiculous.

We have all kinds of regulations on drivers and vehicle ownership. Age restrictions, universal checks to ensure that drivers are both competent and safe, licensing, vehicle registration, restrictions on speed, and stricter requirements for those wishing to use larger, more powerful, vehicles.

Do we protest against the infringement on our freedom of movement? No. We accept these regulations on the understanding that, whilst we may feel ourselves to be responsible and well-intentioned, they are necessary for the restriction and control of those who might not be.

A careful observer would notice that most people within the anti-gun contingent are not advocating a total ban on gun ownership, but rather tighter regulations to protect against individuals who have not proved themselves responsible to own an object designed specifically to kill.

Regulations do not mean that no one is ever intentionally run down at the hands of a mentally disturbed or revenge-driven person. Would gun owners then advocate the doing away with these regulations in argument of unfettered freedom for themselves, at the cost of others’ safety?